Second Amendment "arms" include:

[tyme]

(see poll)

 

[MicroBalrog]

I think the principle of "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose" excludes WMDs.

Consider this:

Let us suppose I own a hypothethical collection of weaponry extending through all the items in tyme's list (oh, if only).

I could, in theory, have access to a secure location where I could fire off almost all of these weapons without any harm to Tyme, or anybody else. I could also potentially use them in self-defense and avoid damage to innocent civilians (say, mowing down hordes of Mutant Zombie Bikers with an MK-19).

But it is not possible for me to utilize a nuke in this fashion, because the fallout will inevitably negatively affect Tyme, and all the other people on Earth. Any use of a nuke, even on a far-off isolated island, harms innocents, and plants my hypothethical fist firmly in everybody else's nose.

Ergo, no nukes.

 

[44 AMP]

WMDs don't belong on the list

Our Founding Fathers were ok with citizens owning cannon (if they could afford one), and even owning warships (armed with cannon) for which they would issue letters of marque, giving the ships owners/operators the legal authority to attack enemy shipping in the name of the US Govt. And do so as private citizens, not member of the military.

So, I think artillery (and anything that mounts it) should be on the list.

Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons should not be!

with one exception.

The exception is nature's own bio-weapon, dead animals. And only because a law prohibiting ownership of dead animals is more than a bit stupid.

 

[publius42]

and the rockets' red glare

 

[jrfoxx]

I think it includes everything except nuclear, bilogical, radiological, and chemical weapons, as they are just way too difficult safely store and keep them from inadvertantly leaking, and indescriminantly killing thousands or more.Also, thier use by those will ill intent has a casualty rate that dwarfs all other weapons to a massive degree.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

I think it includes everything except nuclear, bilogical, radiological, and chemical weapons,

I agree with this but must add rockets and missiles to the list. Just not sure that anyone needs those.

I actually struggled to type that as I'm against any type of weapon bans, but I can see too many people with too little knowledge having access to something like a rocket.

 

[GPossenti]

Where is the line between "arms" and "ordinance"?

 

[freakshow10mm]

Arms are weapons that can be readily carried. Ordnance is weapons such as artillery and explosives.

 

[copenhagen]

Arms are weapons that can be readily carried. Ordnance is weapons such as artillery and explosives.

One way to look at it. I have to say though, if I owned 1000 acres in the middle of nowhere, I'd be looking to buy an AT4, LAAW, or SMAW for my Back Yard Missile Range!

Not to mention the great fun I could have with 81's on Fourth of JULY!!!

 

[publius42]

Model rocketry is a huge hobby. Some of those critters are pretty good sized!

 

[Sarge]

Anything not excluded by the original wording of the Amendment.

 

[MisterWilson]

My understanding was that the founders were fine with anything that could be carried, dragged, or driven.

They didn't want the government to have a monopoly of force over the citizenry.

Or am I mistaken?

 

[Yellowfin]

Privateering could be one way of getting at the illegal drug trade and/or illegal immigration, allowing privateers to keep the cash and maybe firearms and vehicles but destroy the drugs. It'd be a great way for the gov't to save loads of $$$.

 

[rantingredneck]

a point of technicality with the poll. 20 gauge shotguns and larger are above .50 caliber.

 

[CGSteve8718]

Privateering could be one way of getting at the illegal drug trade and/or illegal immigration, allowing privateers to keep the cash and maybe firearms and vehicles but destroy the drugs. It'd be a great way for the gov't to save loads of $$$.

Or we could simply do away with the dreadful, ineffectual failure that has been the "war on drugs" for the past several decades.

Don't want to hijack.

I voted for pretty much everything except WMDs. They aren't weapons used for defense, or offense really. Just pure destruction, which would do no good to destroy the land/country we seek to save from tyranny. This is also why the Cold War stayed cold. What good is ruling the world, when there is no world left?

 

[MisterWilson]

Yellowfin, did you bump your head?

That would be such a monumentally bad idea, I don't know where to begin.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I am debating this in another thread so I won't comment more but this thread is hilarious.

 

[azredhawk44]

Private citizens of the US should be able to own any weaponry that would make them a force to be reckoned with on the high seas or the wild frontiers, anywhere in the world.

If I've got a 75 foot yacht and sail often from the Baja Gulf to the Red Sea, chances are I might come across pirates in Somalia, Indonesia or other places. I should be able to blow them out of the water with weaponry on board. If I feel a 20mm Vulcan cannon with incindiary rounds lets me get that job done, then so be it.

If I'm an American living in the US and my country is being downtrodden by its own or a foreign government, I should have access to weaponry capable of destroying armored vehicles. Or somebody else should who has the money, aptitude and foresight to stock that weaponry.

Remember folks, the key objects for the British Regulars to get in Concord were the three cannon on the lawn of the tavern back in April 18th, 1775, and the large stores of black powder. They weren't there for muskets and fowling pieces or individual powder horns.

 

[copenhagen]

CGSteve8718:

I voted for pretty much everything except WMDs. They aren't weapons used for defense, or offense really. Just pure destruction, which would do no good to destroy the land/country we seek to save from tyranny. This is also why the Cold War stayed cold. What good is ruling the world, when there is no world left?

My Sentiments Exactly. +1 CGSteve8718.

 

[stevelyn]

I would say it most definitely includes all full and semi-auto, individual and crew-served small arms at least up to 20mm. Configuration, short-barrel, long-barrel shouldn't even be an issue.

Anything above that I think would be would be debateable due to destructive power of munitions if something went wrong. I've seen what a Daisycutter did to a couple of storage bunkers when it spontaneously detonated.

I don't think explosive munitions for artillery, mortars, grenades, etc. would be much kinder.

Privateering could be one way of getting at the illegal drug trade and/or illegal immigration, allowing privateers to keep the cash and maybe firearms and vehicles but destroy the drugs. It'd be a great way for the gov't to save loads of $$$.

Yellowfin, did you bump your head?

That would be such a monumentally bad idea, I don't know where to begin.

Although I don't agree with the "war" we're waging on non-licensed pharmaceuticals, we are already using privateers as an instrument of foreign policy.

What do you think outfits like Blackwater, Dynacorp, Haliburton and others of their ilk are?

Yup.........US Goobermint approved, sanctioned and licensed pirates operating as long as it suits our goals.